Pokrovsky theory

[twik]

USSR assisted Afghan government and took care of their Warzaw Pact countries....

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning!

Seriously, this shows that you are simply a Soviet apologist, unable to accept that your ideal Communist government failed to do what those nasty American capitalists were able to do.

[tedward]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I must repeat that Soviet politicians did not have any interest to deny the success of Apollo. But the space scientists knew exactly what the reality was (and maybe informed politicians). Somehow Soviet politicians were happy that USA puts their efforts to Moon missions ... not to military operations. The times were cold or actually very hot - USSR assisted Afghan government and took care of their Warzaw Pact countries - USA attacked independent countries in Asia (Korea, Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia, etc), Central America, South America, and had Gladio Program in Europe. And USA was in panic because of Soviet success in space research.

PS - it is not very nice to call experts having probably more knowledge on space research as hoaxers or conspiracy theorists - those other people who are repeating Wikipedia or NASA/Apollo sketches are parrots ... nothing more - so leave out such wording.

You have a few issues in there, might want to re word it. Things like "assist" the Afghan government, and "took care" of the Wasaw pact countries" etc. That usually meant under your heel and with guns and families never seen again etc.

Korea was the North trying to railroad the south and would do again if the US were not there in force.

Not read up enough on the political goings on of Vietnam and associated area's of conflict but I understand it to be a war between the US and communist backed north. However I know it is not that simple.

And of course the US has done stuff. But you cannot hold up the USSR as it was and what it has become as fluffy white clean. Far from it, the USSR played dirty as well. Well known rifle from the USSR is famous for a reason.

I would repeat the the politicians would have wanted as much dirt as possible to feed back to the US over Apollo if it were a hoax. You can try to re write history, but fortunately it is within living memory and there is much info that can be gleamed that is able to be backed up.

Your PS at the end. Taking the micky?

[Tsialkovsky]

ka9q - what are your "established, publicly witnessed facts" - have you asked these facts from your neighbor's grandmam or what? Those issues which I raise are coming from experts only - not from Wikipedia or NASA sketches. It seems that you are one of the parrots, I was describing above. So because of this, you should verify your points using EXPERT witnesses, please.

[gwiz]

The Skylab decay from orbit was extensively examined and agencies all over the world were making predictions. If the Skylab mass was different from the official NASA figure, this would have altered the ballistic coefficient and made all these predictions wildly inaccurate.

The fact that the decay was predicted accurately means the mass was as claimed

[echnaton]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

PS - it is not very nice to call experts having probably more knowledge on space research as hoaxers or conspiracy theorists - those other people who are repeating Wikipedia or NASA/Apollo sketches are parrots ... nothing more - so leave out such wording.

Your posts have few references. Which of the "experts" that you have presented to us are you referring to as being dismissed as just hoaxers. While you are at it, tell can you give us some examples of your critics here are just repeating Wikipedia.

[echnaton]

Dec 15, 2011 9:44:38 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

ka9q - what are your "established, publicly witnessed facts" - have you asked these facts from your neighbor's grandmam or what? Those issues which I raise are coming from experts only - not from Wikipedia or NASA sketches. It seems that you are one of the parrots, I was describing above. So because of this, you should verify your points using EXPERT witnesses, please.

The burden of proof is on you, Tsialkovsky. Show is that your "experts" are truly experts first.

[twik]

Dec 15, 2011 9:44:38 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

ka9q - what are your "established, publicly witnessed facts" - have you asked these facts from your neighbor's grandmam or what? Those issues which I raise are coming from experts only - not from Wikipedia or NASA sketches. It seems that you are one of the parrots, I was describing above. So because of this, you should verify your points using EXPERT witnesses, please.

Well, if you eliminate NASA itself, you lose a lot of expert witnesses, don't you?

Of course, we could do what you do - I could say that Canadian intelligence had complete proof that the landings were real. Alas, policy forbids me to name anyone or quote any documents. But trust me, they do say that.

I am confused on one thing. Could you please expand on why the noble Soviet government allowed itself to be shown up as unable to do what a capitalist society could, even though they knew it was a lie? Why did they allow the rest of the world to be swayed by falsehood, and believe that Soviet Russia was an inefficient dinosaur, both politically and in technology?

[Jason Thompson]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

My calculations propose that Skylab was not at all so heavy.

Your calculations are on very shaky footing already, since you have confused the habitable volume of the airlock module with the total volume of the module. Would you care to acknowledge that?

we must understand that the figures are exceptionally high - anomalies - in rocket engineering. Today we cannot even imagine a rocket as strong without external boosters.

So what? Today the SR-71 and Concorde stand out as anomalies in manned aircraft, and yet I see very few if any claiming they are fake.

Saturn V F-1 engines were indeed dead end and major failures in rocket engineering - that is why they were not further developed and were completely abandoned.

You will kindly provide some evidence for this claim. Repeatedly saying something does not make it true. There are reams of documents detailing the tests of the F-1 engine, and every Saturn V launched with five of them on the first stage, so it seems they worked. The reason they were abandoned is because they were large, expensive, complex, and other options, such as solid rockets, existed.

If they did what was told, they would certainly be today the most celebrated rocket systems used by all the space countries

Standard fallacy: if they worked everyone would use them. Why, when cheaper alternatives exist? In World War 1 the Germans built a gun that they used to shell Paris from over 70 miles away. It worked, so why are armies all over the world wasting time with ballistic missiles when they can just build big guns like that?

F-1 engines always had major problems with pogo

They always had problems with pogo, but they were not hhge and were worked, just like all experimental rocket engines. They also had problems with combustion instabilityto start with, but that was solved too.

especially after about one minute from start (where Skylab was also damaged)

Skylab's damage had nothing to do with pogo.

(Pokrovsky said that they had to reduce the performance 20 %).

Pokrovsky's inability to perform basic calculations on the Saturn V performance has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread already. Care to address that fact?

PS - it is not very nice to call experts having probably more knowledge on space research as hoaxers or conspiracy theorists

The people you are dealing with here are experts. Some of them work or have worked in the aerosapce industry, some have worked with rockets, and some have worked with engineers who worked on Apollo.

those other people who are repeating Wikipedia or NASA/Apollo sketches are parrots

How many sources have to agree on something before repeating what they all agree on is not mere parroting?

Do you have anything to bring to the table apart from repeated claims of poor engine performance? Do you have any hard evidence to discuss?

[Jason Thompson]

Dec 15, 2011 9:44:38 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

ka9q - what are your "established, publicly witnessed facts"

How about the millions who watched the Saturn V lift off at each Apollo launch?

How about the fact, as already mentioned earlier in this thread, that the acceleration of the Saturn V can be easily determined at launch by seeing how long it takes to clear the tower, and the fact that Pokrovsky's 'calculations' based on later portions of video and film do not match up with either that easily verifiable performance or the known behaviour of every rocket ever built?

Those issues which I raise are coming from experts only

Name them and provide the evidence then. Stop handwaving with anonymous sources and repeated claims with nothing to back them up.

[Bob B.]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Soviet inteligence says that the capacity of rocket was not more than 27 tons to Moon orbit.

And we’re just supposed to take your word for it? Until you can lay out the evidence to support this claim, I think we can dismiss it as something you’ve made up.

My calculations propose that Skylab was not at all so heavy.

All evidence so far seems to point to your calculations being wrong.

Today we cannot even imagine a rocket as strong without external boosters.

Hogwash. External boosters are just one way to skin the cat. The Soviet/Russians have always seemed to favor a clustered design, but that’s just one approach. The Saturn approach was an equally valid design philosophy, and nobody, except for maybe kooks like you, question that it worked.

America has used the strap-on philosophy in many of its designs, as it does have advantages. American has always favored relatively cheap solid propellant boosters to provide the high thrust needed at lift off. This allows the core stage to be configured more for high-altitude flight, as it takes over after the boosters fall away. The recent trend has been to use a high-efficiency LOX-LH2 core with solid straps-ons. The use of LH2 is something the Russians have never been able to master. Back in the 1960s, while the US was perfectly LOX-LH2 propulsion, the Soviets considered the manufacture of large quantities of LH2 beyond their technological capability.

Then the big problem remains - we cannot explain how the 47 ton Apollo system could have been transported to the Moon orbit. We don't find any solution to this in rocket engineering.

Nonsense. There is no engineering reason to doubt the success of the Saturn V or F-1 engine.

Saturn V F-1 engines were indeed dead end and major failures in rocket engineering - that is why they were not further developed and were completely abandoned.

The F-1 was a remarkable piece of engineering and the great success story. You’ve provided no evidence to the contrary. Nobody is taking your unsubstantiated claims seriously.

If they did what was told, they would certainly be today the most celebrated rocket systems used by all the space countries - but they are not even considered in rocket planning.

There is not much demand for a 1.5-million pound thrust engine, which is why the F-1 disappeared after its primary task was completed. Today’s launch business is dominated by mid-sized launch vehicles using smaller engines. Atlas, Delta, Ariane, Soyuz, etc. There is little or no use for an F-1 in today's commercial launch business.

RD-170 and RD-180 are engines used by all ... including US.

The Atlas V uses the RD-180 one its first stage, but as far as I know, all other US rockets and stages use US developed engines. I also don’t know of any other nations that use these engines, though perhaps you can enlighten me. As far as I know, ESA and China use their own engines.

Somehow Soviet politicians were happy that USA puts their efforts to Moon missions ... not to military operations.

Were have you been? The US expended tremendous resources into military operations. Only the work of NASA was non-military, but missile development was carried out by the US military in earnest throughout that time.

The times were cold or actually very hot - USSR assisted Afghan government and took care of their Warzaw Pact countries - USA attacked independent countries in Asia (Korea, Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia, etc), Central America, South America, and had Gladio Program in Europe. And USA was in panic because of Soviet success in space research.

I’m not about to go there, but it is quite clear your views are being driven by extreme prejudice. I find you to be a very unreliable source.

[twik]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Soviet inteligence says that the capacity of rocket was not more than 27 tons to Moon orbit.

Canadian intelligence says that they were quite adequate to the job. And we're closer to the US, so we would obviously know more.

I'd link to the full report that would prove my point, but you know, national security and all that. But trust me, the experts are on MY side here.

[ka9q]

Dec 15, 2011 9:44:38 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

ka9q - what are your "established, publicly witnessed facts" - have you asked these facts from your neighbor's grandmam or what? Those issues which I raise are coming from experts only - not from Wikipedia or NASA sketches. It seems that you are one of the parrots, I was describing above. So because of this, you should verify your points using EXPERT witnesses, please.

I have used expert witnesses -- the NASA people who wrote the documents describing the hardware on public view at Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center, Alabama Missile and Science Center, and the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum, and which has been there long before the USSR fell apart under the sheer weight of its corruption and inefficiency.

One of the items on display at that last location is your own Soyuz. An American Apollo capsule linked with one in 1975, or did you forget? Perhaps you and your anonymous "Soviet intelligence" sources should have paid attention to the information that was being openly shared with their own government. If you had, you'd know that the upper stage of the Saturn IB that launched Apollo to rendezvous with Soyuz (since Soyuz was at that time technically incapable of rendezvousing with Apollo) was identical to the upper stage of the Saturn V that launched nine Apollo ships to the moon, thus confirming the performance of that stage. But perhaps you don't consider your own space experts to be experts...

And since I anticipated that you would probably not accept information from our experts either, I specifically alluded to information that was publicly witnessed by those who came to watch Saturn launches in person. I know it seems strange that a government should welcome the public to such events, but if you talk to your friends in Soviet intelligence they may indeed report having seen millions of people on the beaches from the vantage point of their "fishing trawlers" off the coast of Florida.

Such information, which they could even verify for themselves if they knew how to navigate and operate a rangefinder or periscope, included the height of the launch tower, the overall height of the Saturn V rocket, the dimensions of each stage of the rocket and spacecraft, the time it took the rocket to clear the launch pad, the time until the first stage shut down and separated from the rocket, and the angular position of the rocket at staging or even its position and velocity if you had multiple ships observing. One could even verify most of the propellants being used by the rocket from such clues as the frost covering its exterior and the color of the flames in the "burn ponds" used at the pads to get rid of surplus quantities.

A rocketry expert such as you should not have to be told how to use information like this to verify certain performance parameters of especially the first stage, but if not let me know and I will be happy to lead you through the equations first discovered by your eponymous countryman.

[sts60]

Dec 14, 2011 21:53:45 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

...

For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons.

Wrong.

Referring to NASA TM-X-04810, Skylab Airlock Module Final Report, the mass of the Airlock Module was a little over 15,000 pounds.

Edited to reflect a difference between pressurized cylindrical segments only, and the entire composite assembly. tsailkovsky's citation above is not wrong.

The volume of this module is 17 m3. If that would be completely full solid aluminium, that would weight 47 tons. This means that it should have been half filled with aluminium - which is a big lie. I measured the cross sections and only 15-20 % was some material which means that the real weight is 7-9 tons.

Wrong, again.

Edited - see above edit note.

If we consider only the two fixed cylindrical pressure vessel sections, the tunnel assembly (153" L, 65" dia) and the Structure Transition Section (47" L, 120" dia), and represent them as simple "average" aluminum cylinders, then they would only need to be a little over 3" thick to exceed the documented mass.

But suppose we used your incorrect value of 22 tons (44,000 lbs). Again, using only the two-cylinder cartoon, the thickness of the two sections would only have to be about 9.3 inches. That would mean that the tunnel assembly was about half empty, and the STS was about 7/10 empty. So even using your wrong value, you're still wildly off.

And, of course, the cylindrical sections had or needed no such thickness of aluminum to make up the listed mass, since there were a lot of things making up the airlock module, including an external truss assembly, tanks, provisions, fittings, wiring, instrumentation, internal bracing, etc.

The weight of Skylab body was even less than 8 tons because removal of J-2 engine with all the accessories should be considered. And airlock replaced it as told and measured above.
You can have the total mass of 30 tons - not more.

You have the wrong number for the ATM mass, and you have demonstrated that you cannot even perform a simple sanity check of your values. That is one of the first things that engineers like Bob and I do, and we have shown your "solid cylinder" claims to be completely off base.

And engines had extensive pogo problems even then breaking the vehicle's shielding and solar panels.

Wrong again. POGO was not the cause of the Skylab launch mishap.

Only Russians have lifted extensive loads to LEO...

Fantasy.

I trust very much Russian investigations 1969 at the Florida coast.

Of course you trust completely unsourced "investigations", but you don't trust the Soviet engineers and cosmonauts who came to talk about the "race" to the Moon and the success of Apollo, because you have a fixed ideology and must protect it.

With that fleet of electronic spying ships they can tel the Saturn V figures with 3 decimals.

Tell what to 3 decimal places? How, exactly? And where is your actual evidence for any of this?

Meanwhile, Soviet electronic resources that are actually documented tracked Apollo to the Moon.

It is pity that Pokrovsky and others are not allowed to use spy data in publications (Russian foreign policy).

Anonymous fantasizing aside, his incompetence, and yours, in this "analysis" have been well established.

[sts60]

Dec 14, 2011 21:53:45 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

...For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons...

Dec 15, 2011 7:37:37 GMT -4 ka9q said:

Some more Skylab mass figures picked from various NASA reports:
...
The NASA board investigating the launch problems with Skylab gave these masses:
...
Airlock Module: 22,226 kg
...

OK, I apologize - I believe I'm looking at a subassembly weight for the pressurized parts of the Airlock Module, which total what I said in my post above (about 15,000 lbs). The TM cites

AM weight: 15,166 lbs <-- pressurized segments only, not the entire AM assembly
FAS weight: 22,749 lbs
DA weight: 3,744 lbs

which I think are included as a composite in the figures of 22 tons/~22,000 kg by the posters quoted above.

So I will allow that tsialkovsky cited a correct weight for the entire AM, and have marked up my earlier post accordingly.

However, that does not change the point that he is still wildly wrong in his claims that even if it was a solid aluminum ingot that it wouldn't make up the stated weight. I showed that even a ridiculously conservative cartoon of the AM - just the two pressurized fixed segments alone - disproved that rather conclusively. tsialkovsky's claims still fail the sanity check rather badly.

[ka9q]

Dec 15, 2011 12:57:58 GMT -4 sts60 said:

OK, I apologize - I believe I'm looking at a subassembly weight for the pressurized parts of the Airlock Module, which total what I said in my post above (about 15,000 lbs). The TM cites

AM weight: 15,166 lbs <-- pressurized segments only, not the entire AM assembly
FAS weight: 22,749 lbs
DA weight: 3,744 lbs

which I think are included as a composite in the figures of 22 tons/~22,000 kg by the posters quoted above.

I was just about to point out the same thing. The AM was just the core Airlock Module, and 22 tonnes did seem high. But the FAS (Fixed Airlock Shroud) was 10319 kg. This seems heavy for a relatively small structure but it had to support the loads of the entire upper part of Skylab during launch; 1st stage acceleration peaked at 4.5g, higher than any manned flight because of the necessarily lower mass of everything above the S-IC/S-II.

While we're refining figures, I'm a little behind on our friend Tsialkovsky's figures; at one point he seriously confuses the LEO capability of the 3-stage Saturn V with the LEO capability of just the first two stages used to launch Skylab. The LEO capability of the Saturn V was considerably greater because it had another entire stage to work with, but it wasn't necessary as Skylab was too light.